WALL•E: A Butch/Femme Love Story... or Silly Rabbit! Robots Have No GenderI’m completely smitten with WALL•E, this summer’s Pixar/Disney offering. But the last thing I expected to see in my friendly, heterosexual upper east side Manhattan neighborhood movie theater was a feature length cartoon about a pair of lesbian robots who fall madly in love with each other. WALL•E is nothing short of hot, dyke Sci Fi action romance, some seven hundred years in the future! Woo-hoo!

Isn’t that what you saw? No? What movie were you watching?

Did you see a heterosexual boy robot fall in love with a heterosexual girl robot? I did… at first. And it makes sense how someone could assume that. I mean, WALL•E is a sweet little guy, right? He’s all, “gosh, shucks,” and shy around girls... a real warm-hearted guy, right? And Eve! Is she adorably hot, or what?! She could be Honey West, Emma Peel, or your favorite Charlie’s Angel. So, agreed: when I first saw the film, I saw a boy robot and girl robot. My question is this: how and why did most of us jump to that conclusion?

Is it because of their names? The names sound like Wally and Eve, but their names are very specifically WALL•E and EVE, all in capital letters—because both names are acronyms for each robot’s prime directive and function. Nothing to do with boy or girl there.

The film makers take a great deal of care in pointing out that WALL•E and EVE’s notion of butch/femme romance is based in the world and culture of Hello, Dolly. That’s supposed to be a cue for the audience to believe they’re a “healthy” heterosexual male and female couple. But it’s not proof that they are male or female. And anyway, how camp is Hello, Dolly!?

Is it that simply by looking at the robots, we can tell that WALL•E’s a boy and EVE is a girl? What was it up on that screen that defined the robots’ gender? Both robots were naked, so we could see their entire anatomy, right? Neither of those robots had a vagina or a penis. Did you see one or the other? Neither robot was sporting an Adam’s apple. Neither EVE nor WALL•E flashed any tit that I could see. So, we’ve got no way to spot those robots as male or female by using secondary sex characteristics. But still, most of us would swear on a stack of holy bibles or holy Gender Trouble that those robots are male and female. How did we most of us come to agree on that?

Both EVE and WALL•E have cute little storage compartments right where their internal reproductive organs would’ve been had they been human. I’m guessing neither robot has a DNA strand, so there is no way to type them by XX or XY—not to mention the over a dozen more X, Y, and O chromosome combinations that determine any of the fifteen human genders found in human nature. So it’s not sperms and eggs nor X’s and Y’s that are making EVE a female and WALL•E a male. Barring hormones—which I didn’t get a whiff of during the entire film—that just about exhausts the physiological basis for determining gender.

Pixar and Disney made a great many anatomical choices when they designed EVE and WALL•E to be as close to human as they can possibly be and still be robots. They didn’t give us one single anatomical clue to the gender of these cute li’l robots, but they knew we’d see WALL•E as boy and EVE as girl. Both of ‘em are gosh-darned CUTE, right? Oh, come on. You know they’re SO adorable, right? How can they be that in nearly everyone’s eyes… gay or straight? I think the answer is that we shift our mind’s criteria for gender when we watch a film or listen to a love song or read a novel. We all blithely switch genders in our minds, the better to identify with the vocalist or character. Reading novels, listening to music, or watching films, we consciously or unconsciously switch the gender mix to that which delights us the most.

We want to identify with the singer of the song or the one being sung to, so we make the genders “right” in our minds. For example, there’s a wonderful song by Tegan and Sara, I Know I Know I Know. I first heard it as soundtrack music during a very heterosexual moment on Grey’s Anatomy. No surprise the that what I first heard in that music was a girl singing a bittersweet love song to her boyfriend. Then I bought the song from iTunes and I played it over and over. It became easy for me to hear the song as a girl singing to her girlfriend, and suddenly I could enter the music as opposed to be outside the music, listening in. And hey—it wasn’t until several months later that I found out that Tegan and Sara are sisters… and they’re both lesbians! Sometimes, art is so powerful that it trumps gender as a pathway to love and romance in our hearts and minds.

Marlene Dietrich in a tuxedo can make all our hearts flutter. So can Justin Bond in a gown or a tux... or both! Gender ambiguity—when it’s safely positioned onstage or up on a movie screen—is and always has been sexy to damn near all of us, no matter what our gender might be. All of our desires are being tickled. So how’s that happening? What is it that’s signaling sexual attraction to an audience with such a wide range of gender identities and sexual desires? I think the answer is that WALL•E is butch, and EVE is femme, two genders defined by the expression of strong, respectful, sexual desire.

Butch and Femme are sexy dance steps with unlimited variations. Butch is gallant, femme is gracious. Butch is hail and hardy, femme has wicked cool wiles. Butch is handsome. Femme is pretty. Butch/Femme is all about relating to each other like ladies and gentlemen—no matter our genitals. Butch is Stanley Kowalski, femme is Blanche DuBois. But in a production called Belle Reprieve, Stanley was played to perfection onstage by handsome, butch Peggy Shaw. Beautious drag queen Bette Bourne played Blanche. They were perfectly butch and femme.

Butches can be dominant or submissive, strong or weak, honorable, or complete rats. So can Femmes. Butch and Femme have nothing to do with who makes more money. And no one in real life is a hundred percent butch. No one is a hundred percent femme. Like everything else about our identities, butch and femme are all a matter of degree based on preference, comfort and choice. There’s no perfection in the dance, there’s only the totality of self-expression and how that self-expression dovetails with someone else’s self-expression. When people play with that consciously, it’s wonderful fun. At its best, Butch/Femme becomes an erotic expression of “This is how I’m femme, and it makes me really happy that I delight the butch in you.” And, “This is how I’m butch, and it makes me really happy that I delight the femme in you.”

There is no singular archetype of Butch and Femme. The belief in the notion that there’s a right way to do Butch and a right way to do Femme begins perhaps with mythological, fictional, or cultural archetypes, which over time become accepted unconsciously as “normal” in a given culture. For example: weak, defenseless or predatory femme is imposed as “normal” behavior for females in a heteronormative, sexist culture. Strong, stalwart, and silent or brutal butch is imposed as “normal behavior for males in a heteronormative, sexist culture. Like in campy Hello, Dolly.

Yes, EVE is pertly streamlined. EVE’s eyes literally sparkle and dance. EVE giggles, for heaven’s sake. EVE is kick-ass strong and powerful. EVE is performing Femme. WALL•E is rugged and protective and shy and loyal. WALL•E is a sensitive little thing, held together by sheer will and rubber bands. WALL•E is performing Butch.

Once we begin to look at the characters as Butch and Femme—not male and female—we can assign to them any gender we like. Sure, the film can be about a boy robot and a girl robot. But how about EVE as a sweet femme boy robot, like performer/chanteuse extraordinaire, Justin Bond. And WALL•E is a sweet butch girl robot, with a heart of solid gold, like performer/chanteuse extraordinaire Lea Delaria? You could watch the film with that interpretation of the characters. WALL•E and EVE are best mates and they love each other. They hold hands. That works.

When the only gender clues present in the film belong to the genders butch and femme, then the movie could be about two boy robots—a younger version of the gay male couple played by Nathan Lane and Robin Williams in the film, The Birdcage. Fierce femme and strong gentle butch, both of ‘em boys. WALL•E works just as well with that configuration of robots—if you want it to.

You’re the audience. You get to decide.

This isn’t Disney’s first whack at the cultural gender binary. Mu-Lan is a film about a female to male cross-dresser. And what about Pinocchio? An animated block of wood spends an entire movie trying to become a “real” boy—aided by a blue fairy and an asexual cricket. And what gender exactly was Ariel (a non-gender specific name, by the way) when that little mermaid had a fishy tail? Did she go through a gender change when she grew legs which (presumably) had something between them so she could be a “real” girl? And getting down to basics, can anyone prove that Mickey and Minnie Mouse are male and female?

All in all, I’m delighted to see Pixar/Disney’s latest blow to the binary gender system. I’ll go back and watch WALL•E a couple of times this summer, I’m sure. It’s a brilliant film on many levels. I bet you—no matter your gender or sexual orientation—you’ll fall in love with how those robots fall in love with each other. I sure did.

Happy Summer, Kate

"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

The Original BJ wrote:I did root for Newman in '04, but with barely any enthusiasm, because his vehicle that year was Lemony Snicket. (Tee, here's one thing we definitely disagree on: I thought Finding Nemo was certainly '03's best score.)

Sorry..brain cramp. In '03, I was looking for an alternate rooting interest to a Rings retread, and didn't find enough in Nemo; the following year, as you say, it was Lemony Snicket that didn't measure up.

What I'm looking for is a Newman score on the level of Little Women, American Beauty or his Six Feet Under theme, for which I can forthrightly root. Wall E will definitely serve.

Mister Tee wrote:In '04, when Finding Neverland was such a flimsy front-runner for original score, I'd have loved to have been able to root for Newman, but I had no enthusiasm for Finding Nemo as the vehicle.

You're probably right, BJ, that Wall E is the best film so far this year -- although what's out there and what I've made it to so far comprise such a thin field I find it hard to even think in these terms. It's way premature -- things can always surprise -- but given the first 8 months' content and the list of films slated between now and December, my instinct is that '08 isn't going to be a banner year.

I did root for Newman in '04, but with barely any enthusiasm, because his vehicle that year was Lemony Snicket. (Tee, here's one thing we definitely disagree on: I thought Finding Nemo was certainly '03's best score.)

Re: the year so far. It's been pretty barren, hasn't it, even compared to previous Jan-August slates, where at least interesting pictures like Away From Her, Zodiac, United 93, The Black Dahlia, Mysterious Skin, Before Sunset, and Eternal Sunshine whetted our appetites for the fall. (Hell, I'd even say misfires like La Vie en Rose and Crash at least provoked interesting discussions, even if the films weren't great.) Never have I so looked forward to award season, because there has to be SOMETHING that will come along and break the previous eight months' streak of near-inconsequentiality.

The Original BJ wrote:(I also did miss the colorful cast of supporting players...)

I agree, the film is rather underpopulated. As for the lack of (for want of a better term) set pieces, I'd argue the film is for the most part working on a different level. For me, the emotional content was so much stronger than in any PIXAR since Toy Story 2 that it rendered story-details less important.

I'll agree with both of you about Newman's work -- and I'm fully in agreement, Sabin, that Newman's work in previous animated features has seemed wan compare to his dramatic work. (In '04, when Finding Neverland was such a flimsy front-runner for original score, I'd have loved to have been able to root for Newman, but I had no enthusiasm for Finding Nemo as the vehicle)

You're probably right, BJ, that Wall E is the best film so far this year -- although what's out there and what I've made it to so far comprise such a thin field I find it hard to even think in these terms. It's way premature -- things can always surprise -- but given the first 8 months' content and the list of films slated between now and December, my instinct is that '08 isn't going to be a banner year.

I recently rewatched 'WALL*E' and the strongest scene in the film is oddly played down, when WALL*E doesn't just remain memory-less but begins to trash compact his own belongings. It's a devastating moment they don't really play for what it is worth. It should be something that lingers. Whatever shortcomings the film has of which there are very few (I'd argue that while this is Thomas Newman's best score since 'American Beauty', his work on the PIXAR films are by far the weakest; he's just not a composer for animation), I'd be astonished if I saw a more capable work this year than 'WALL*E'.

This is a blog I wrote about how 'WALL*E' and 'Ratatouille' may not be the most successful PIXAR films but they're the only ones to do something new and interesting with the form.

$200 MILLION DOLLAR SLEEPER.

I remember hearing the phrase "$200 Million Disappointment" back when 'Pearl Harbor' was first released to hoots and hollars, all entirely deserved for that N64-'PilotWings' missile drop in search of a movie. At least one waded through the boner-ific catastrophes replete in 'Titanic' with the knowledge that Alpha Male James Cameron at least believed his melodrama was vintage, but audiences clued in early on that the love trangle in 'Pearl Harbor' was arbitrary to the point of non-existence. Sadly, it was $200 million's worth of audiences; this was also the first time it was revealed that only seven movies in history haven't made money. I think one of them is 'Cutthroat Island'. Unlike Geena Davis's bust, 'Pearl Harbor' sailed onward to nominal respectable worldwide grosses and - SHOCK OF SHOCKS! - more Oscar wins than Razzies! Poor 'Poiwl Hawbaw' and it's pittance $200 million...

Now we have a new entry into the lexicon; with ever-expanding ticket prices resultant in a new All Time High every week (LAST MINUTE EDIT: Not anymore -- 'Dark Knight'!), we have a new label pasted onto the side of a product equal parts lavishly praised and uncommercial on paper: the $200 Million Sleeper! Let it roll over your tongue...

To say that PIXAR is in a slump doesn't feel entirely accurate, especially considering that 'Cars' was incredibly profitable for the studio, one of their biggest hits if not critically. Yet with 'Ratatouille' and 'WALL-E', the little studio that thirteen years ago could and did drop every jaw on the planet with 'Toy Story' has cashed in their placers with products of incredible daring for G-rated summer ventures of blockbusterdom. And lo have they suffered with their $200 Million Sleepers! At the very least, one would expect to see WALL-E and EVA dolls on TOYS R US shelves were that company still operational, whereas Remy the Rat is a tougher sell. 'Ratatouille' is the rare portrait of artistic suffering in the face of commerciality marinated with the eternal optimism that everyone indeed can cook! What are kids to make of the reinvigoration of angular spectre Anton Ego? The meta-quality of Remy's choice to create ratatouille: something nostalgic, something you've had before but you love, and in no way done with any less attention to detail...kind of like every film in the PIXAR canon. 'Ratatouille' is such a marvel of off-beat pleasures that it never comes to mind how much more kids would probably just prefer a movie about talking rats.

Although Brad Bird's 'The Incredibles' is gloriously retrograde and a delight, 'Ratatouille' is a deeper study of artistry and the limits of animation, its humans now more caricature than any bug, toy, or fish in the sea. No humans are to be found in 'WALL-E' nor dialogue in the first 45 minutes, and when we then see them, they are absurd bags of meat left to bloat over the course of 700 years. Andrew Stanton had to praise his personal faith in Jesus Christ over conservative airwaves to counter charges of propaganda. Is it propaganda if you're correct? If that's not the case, then 'WALL-E' has come too late. I sincerely doubt I will see a stronger film this year than Andrew Stanton's 'WALL-E'. It is quite simply a thing of pure good and for the first 45 minutes speaks on a purely visual language that is too often taken for granted in film, and perhaps the most visually expressive film of our time. It sharply splits into a more joyous chaos as that weird little WALL-E gets to meet those daffy hyoomaaans that he's been cleaning up after for so long, and it is stated outright that not only would he do so until he physically broke down but also that he is but one in a long line of WALL-E's to take part in such servitude. Did 'WALL-E' "fail" because it is propaganda? No, it "failed" because it is the saddest movie they've ever done.

The only failure involved in 'WALL-E' is ours as a race, in our disgraceful treatment of the planet Earth...and perhaps the fact that 'WALL-E' won't end up half as successful as 'Cars'. But dadgum if it (and 'Ratatouille') don't represent the first leaps forward in narrative structure and more so a distinct shift in visual awe. PIXAR's history has been that of the LOOK! To witness an underground colony of ants, of our toys come to life, of the monsters in our closet...with 'Ratatouille' and 'WALL-E', for the first time we have contrasting definitions. 'Ratatouille' inspires awe in moments of gonzo intimacy before anything else. I don't think that PIXAR has done anything as funny or weird in their history as Remy's unlike transformation into marionette; in Remy's pitter-pat scour of the kitchen, there is an almost fetishism between rodent finger and spice as the camera circles and picks up the glisten and sheen of everything in the kitchen; and in the film's most iconic moment, the strange moment of clarity between food critic oft to spit in lieu of swallow and the rat who prepared his meal. In 'WALL-E', the spectacle is expansive to the point of overload. Every single image in 'WALL-E' feels like the world entire, from a jittery WALL-E joining the trigger-happy EVA to watch a landscape burn to the ground to WALL-E showing off his fire extinguisher skills as he joins EVA in an interstellar ballet.

There's really only so much you can say about the paradigm of artistic integrity somehow making two consecutive quantum leaps forward in redefinition wherein none was especially warranted to begin with. In making two for "them", they've made two forever. 'Twas a time when PIXAR represented the the zeitgeist of the public's embrace, the last bastion of good taste in behemoth box office. 'Ratatouille' and 'WALL-E' are far ahead of the pack in estimation with the public lagging behind them, gradually catching up, $200 million at a time...

"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Mister Tee wrote:BJ and I are in sync on a lot of stuff, but apparently animation is fated not to be one of them.

Tee, I actually think even on animation (and this film) we agree a lot. (Well, certainly more than me and Damien.) My initial reaction to WALL-E was impacted by the near-stratospheric raves the film received from critics. It didn't quite measure up to those expectations for me, but I still like the film a great deal. (It's clearly better than Cars, for me about on par with Ratatouille, but in my book didn't soar quite as much as some of the earlier Pixar films.)

As you say, the opening -- nearly wordless -- sequence is marvelous. Sabin has rightly trumpeted Thomas Newman's score, and I will too. It has an eerie, melancholy quality which immediately establishes the film's heartbreaking portrait of loneliness. (And my god, Hello Dolly! is the only movie left on Earth -- who WOULDN'T feel bad for WALL-E!?) I hate to bandy about the word "bravery" in terms of a $200 million-plus Pixar cash cow, but this beautiful, silent portrait of Earth near-ruined has got to be one of the riskiest beginnings to any family film I've ever seen.

The spaceship sequence felt a little more grounded to me. There's some wonderful stuff here -- the utterly beautiful WALL-E/Eve ride on the fire extinguisher through the stars plays like an intergalactic version of Hana and Kip belaying past the frescoes in The English Patient, and the moment when the Captain learns about all the things he left behind on Earth is lovely. But WALL-E's relatively simple story did cause me to miss some of the more densely plotted scripting of the earlier Pixar efforts. (I also did miss the colorful cast of supporting players, though I did think the robots gone crazy were a kick.)

The final return-to-Earth sequence is as hopeful in its ideas about redemption as any film I've seen in a while (plus, there's a killer throw-away line about pizza plants that had my whole family in stitches.) And the final WALL-E/Eve exchange is of course a lovely riff on City Lights's coda.

After all this praise, about the only minute criticisms I'd have are that, well, WALL-E has no moment as heartbreakingly shattering as "When She Loved Me," no action sequence as giddily inspired as Monsters, Inc.'s door chase or The Incredibles's final battle, and no characters as inspired as Buzz, Woody, or Dory. For me it exists slightly in the shadow of its predecessors, but what wonderful company to be in! WALL-E is yet another jewel in Pixar's crown, and certainly my favorite film so far in this wholly uninspiring year so far.

Can't believe it took me so long to post on this film. Probably the hyperbole surrounding The Dark Knight (a lesser and even more overpraised film than WALL-E) has caused me to look back on the waste allocation load lifter with even more fondness.

BJ and I are in sync on a lot of stuff, but apparently animation is fated not to be one of them. I found Wall E one of the freshest of the Pixar efforts -- not enough to, say, recommend it to Damien, but enough to rate it above the recent pair (way above Cars, a bit above Ratatouille), if not quite in the stratosphere of the Toy Story's or The Incredibles.

I guess it's strange I'd call it fresh, since the film is chock-a-block with allusions to other films. The opening segment is The World, The Flesh and the Devil piloted by Jacques Tati (with Hello, Dolly for a soundtrack); the longer segment aboard the spaceship has clear borrowings from/references to Star Wars, E.T. and 2001 (even the BNL videos might be an echo of Lost's Dharma Initiative). And, below the surface, the film clearly assumes we're familiar with An Inconvenient Truth.

But Wall E doesn't use all these cues merely for quick pop-culture-recognition gags, the way the Shrek movies did (the first time amusingly, the second tiresomely) or the way half the animated coming attractions I see seem to. Wall E assumes we have these films in our bones and plays off what we already know to explore new areas. The brief snippets of BNL video are all we need to understand that consumerism and waste have brought earth to this pass. The film's opening segment is remarkably bleak, with the mild slapstick not nearly enough to offset the overwhelming sadness at seeing our planet reduced to a dry hole tended by a mechanical figure. (The companion cockroach is a wonderful touch -- again, playing off a cliché we all know by heart) The silly emotions expressed in the Hello, Dolly clips feel savagely ironic in context -- although the film understands the appeal such simple, reductive emotions have, and encourages us to invest our hopes in Eve, despite the fact she's a machine with a seeming single purpose.

The film really takes off, in story terms and visually, when it zooms up to Axiom. The idea that people, deprived of connection to land, and living in an environment designed by commercial interests, would slowly lose most connection to standard human initiative is a striking one. I don't think the film judges these people harshly; indeed, it suggests the achievement gene, however discouraged over 700 years, will re-emerge with the slightest sense of future-hope, and even fight against the machines that try to stifle it. This is where the film most clearly references, and rebuts, 2001 -- its HAL isn't an evil, conniving entity; it's just a program that can be stopped (with effort) by its creator. And humans don't have to move to an entirely new evolutionary state (a la the Star Child) to advance; they can simply reclaim their former flesh-and-blood-ness. (For a split-second I thought the film was going for a cheap laugh when it invoked the beyond-cliche Zarathustra, but when I realized the point of the reference, I laughed out loud)

I actually hoped, for a moment, that the film would let Wall E stay in his memory-less state at the end. It would have harkened to an earlier, "there's a cost to triumph" era of personal sacrifice that would have been daring. But I guess in this age of compulsory happy endings that was too much to expect (the film had already challenged its kid audience enough with that lengthy wordless opening). So, like ET, Wall E comes back to life. It doesn't ruin things, but it's a tiny bit less interesting than what might have been.

Have I mentioned the visuals are extraordinary? Some (notably BJ) have advocated in the past for art direction consideration for Pixar. I resisted the idea when it came to Ratatouille, because I though, however gorgeous the cityscapes were, they were nothing that good photography couldn't have achieved. Here, though, I thought the environments were something to behold. The shell structures of earth managed to simultaneously evoke skyscrapers and desert ruins. I have no idea how the shimmering heat (the sort we usually see in southwestern-set films) was created. And the design on Axiom was pretty stunning -- a combination of super-spaceship and the most elaborate resort imaginable.

Hardly going out on a limb, but I assume this will sail to the Animated Feature Oscar.

barrybrooks8 wrote:Oh Damien, I can always count on you to hate the cartoons. I am curious, though. Do you watch and/or enjoy the more "prestigious" cartoons, like Spirited Away, Triplets of Belleville, or Princess Mononoke?

WALL-E deserves to mentioned among those films.

I don't want to start writing a review of the film, but rest asured it's one of the years best so far, and deserves to be remembered come Oscar time, and not just as an Aminated Feature contender.

Like Sabin stated the film is gauranteed for six nominations: Animated Feature, Original Screenplay, Score, Song, Sound and Sound Effects (Ben Burt will win both Oscars for this film). Having said that WALL-E would not look out of place in th Best Picture catagory. Nor for that matter would Andrew Stanton in Best Director.

Just imagine it ... WALL-E and The Dark Knight both in for Best Picture... How fucking cool would that be?

Back to WALL-E. Best scene of the year: Wall-E's reaction when EVE ignites the light bulb. Total delight.

barrybrooks8 wrote:Oh Damien, I can always count on you to hate the cartoons. I am curious, though. Do you watch and/or enjoy the more "prestigious" cartoons, like Spirited Away, Triplets of Belleville, or Princess Mononoke?

Uh oh. Here we go . . .

Some time I'll find the time to write on WALL-E. My "in a nutshell" response would be, it's very good, but I'm a little baffled by the "best Pixar since Toy Story" consensus. For me, it would rank near the bottom (though of a list of films I hold in rather high esteem).

Oh Damien, I can always count on you to hate the cartoons. I am curious, though. Do you watch and/or enjoy the more "prestigious" cartoons, like Spirited Away, Triplets of Belleville, or Princess Mononoke?

"Jesus! Look at my hands! Now really, I am too young for liver spots. Maybe I can merge them together into a tan."

barrybrooks8 wrote:I am starting to think that I don't have a heart. I kind of didn't like Wall-E.

I suspect that it's not that you don't have a heart, but that you have good taste.

But then again I haven't seen the damn thing and have no plans to. Having heard every years the reviewers declare that there's some new cartoon (Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, et al) that's the equivalent of Rules of the Game, only to suffer through them and see that they're just crap for kids, I won't get fooled again.

Edited By Damien on 1215931564

"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell